Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market
July 30, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn – BloombergZillow Inc. (Z)’s purchase of Trulia Inc. makes the online company such a force in U.S. real estate that its market value now surpasses that of Realogy Corp., owner of renowned brokerage brands from Coldwell Banker to Century 21.
Zillow, the biggest U.S. real estate website, has seen its market value jump to about $5.83 billion from $4.99 billion on July 23, the day before Bloomberg News reported the deal talks with rival Trulia. Realogy, the largest residential brokerage operator, has a market value of about $5.47 billion, compared with $5.67 billion last week, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
The shift underscores the growing role of the Web in U.S. home sales as buyers start their hunt for homes and mortgages online and rely less on real estate agents, a migration that has taken longer than in industries such as music or travel. While Zillow is unlikely to compete directly with brokers, whose ad dollars are its top revenue source, buying Trulia (TRLA) gives it more command over marketing fees, sparking concerns among Realtors such as Stephen FitzMaurice that costs will rise.
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Using the Prevention Doctrine
April 22, 2019 —
David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThe following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it.
One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Erhart may be contacted at
derhart@grsm.com
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose
January 02, 2024 —
Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana FeldIntroduction
A growing trend in construction defect legislation around the country has seen the shortening of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose for a plaintiff to bring claims related to construction defects. Over the past ten years, several states, notably Florida and Texas, have shortened their statutes of repose. This is generally positive news for developers and contractors; however, the specifics and ramifications of these legislative and judicial updates are still unknown.
Statute of Limitations
A statute of limitations sets forth the time that a plaintiff has to sue or allege a particular cause of action against a defendant. These time limitations are codified into law and vary depending on the State and the cause of action. A statute of limitations starts at the occurrence of an injury or damage or at the time the injury or damage is discovered. The statute of limitations may be subject to some exceptions such as tolling for reasons such as the injured party being a minor in which case depending on the particular statute, the statute does not begin to run until after the minor reaches the age of majority.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and
Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim
August 26, 2024 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation.
At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)
June 19, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHas an Owner ever asked you to sign his contract before you started work on a new design project? Rhetorical question– this happens all the time, right? Especially in commercial work, developers or owners typically are not happy to simply agree to your Proposal for Services, but instead want you to sign *their* contract.
There are some risks with that you should be aware of — one of which is the seemingly arcane and legalistic language that reads something like this:
“The Developer’s contract with Owner is hereby incorporated by reference.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits
October 03, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Sarah J. Markham - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state.
The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.”
Facts of the Case
Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims
March 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDarin J. McMullen of the firm Anderson Kill explained how a recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows “Pennsylvania policyholders” to “more confidently challenge insurance companies’ denials of faulty workmanship claims.”
The decision in Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) “reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies,” according to McMullen. “Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
